linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] ARM64: dts: amlogic: Add basic support for Amlogic S905X

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7ha8fcq26c.fsf@baylibre.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Sep 2016 13:43:39 -0700
From:   Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>
To:     Carlo Caione <carlo@...one.org>
Cc:     Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>,
        Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Carlo Caione <carlo@...lessm.com>,
        "open list\:ARM\/Amlogic Meson..." 
        <linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ARM64: dts: amlogic: Add basic support for Amlogic S905X

Carlo Caione <carlo@...one.org> writes:

> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de> wrote:
>
>>> +Boards with the Amlogic Meson GXL SoC shall have the following properties:
>>> +  Required root node property:
>>> +    compatible: "amlogic,meson-gxl-s905x", "amlogic,meson-gxl";
>>
>> Can we please use "amlogic,s905x", "amlogic,meson-gxl"? No need to
>> complicate the name. Also affects .dtsi and .dts below.
>
> gxl != s905x.
>
> AFAWK to the GXL family belong several different SoCs, like S905X,
> S905D, etc... (see patch 3/3)
> This is why we use meson-gxl-s905x, meson-gxl-s905d, etc...

Correct.

> We could s/meson-gxl-s905x/meson-s905x/ and
> s/meson-gxl-s905d/meson-s905d/ but I honestly prefer this way because
> we can clearly see which family the SoC belongs to (the Amlogic naming
> convention is already messy enough).
> I mean, yes it's longer, but it's for the sake of documentation IMO.

+1

Kevin